It won't be allowed to. The website may go away, but Obamacare won't. It will never go away until it is replaced a a system that either is single payer or closer to single payer. The toothpaste won't go back into the tube and no free market, private sector based solution will replace it. That is not how government works. Now the battle will come down to what party controls it and gets to spend the money, like it always has and does.

Uh, so you believe if one believes in liberty, they are endorsing sexual promiscuity? Do you understand that individual liberty and individual responsibility are inseparable? There is no one without the other. Your desire to impose your sense of morality and enlist the state to do so is how nations head for the dung-heap. In a truly free society that embraces liberty, like a truly free market, bad and irresponsible choices are punished and good and responsible choices are rewarded. Not by your or a ruler's hand, but by natural law. If you believe that is somehow in conflict with God's law, then you may have some thinking to do.

Human nature or the law of reason. Either way, one who has not or cannot take care of himself can hardly be in a position to take care of another. The first obligation we have to others is to be self reliant. The definition of selfishness is not found in what one does for himself, it's found in what one expects others to do for him.

This would be one of those false narratives that both Democrats and Republicans too often engage in to bend the truth to their will. Libertarians said both Mitt Romney and Ken Cuccinelli lacked a fidelity to liberty. I don't think, however, you'll find many that thought they were worse in that respect than their Democrat opponents, though many found neither to be particularly desirable.

As always, the devil is in the details. What is meant by a "strong boarder"? Do you believe a right to life and liberty applies only to American citizens? If you mean you believe in national sovereignty, then I think you still are within the Libertarian rails. By "social safety net" do you mean only the kind that is administered by the state? Do you believe the government or private sector is the most effective and morally justified administrator of the social safety net? I'd say you could be close, but I think you are leaning more toward true Republicanism where the real government authority rests not with the Federal government but with the states and municipalities. The "laboratories of democracy" ideal where individuals can at least vote with their feet and I think a lot of Libertarians would be really happy to get back to that place and then work on any tweaks to the defense if individual liberty from there.

I wish Stossel and other Libertarians would be more precise when they talk about something like "gay marriage" as something Libertarians are in favor of. Actually, Libertarians are in favor of the government (the state) getting out of the marriage business. Being in favor of government approved or disapproved same sex or opposite sex marriage is NOT a Libertarian position. Those are Republican and Democrat positions. Being in favor of the state staying completely out of the marriage business IS a Libertarian position.

That's one of the things that will often be missed even by somebody like Stossel, though it's also not really necessary to go down that road to make the point he was trying to make. Sometimes you have to leave stuff out. Somalia is not a paradise of any kind, but focusing on it compared to a first world, developed country is simply a diversion. The stateless Somalia today is far better off than it was under it's former state and has been making more progress towards peace and prosperity than it ever did before as well as compared to it's more statist neighbors. Perspective matters and those who throw Somalia out there as some kind of refutation to liberty have none of it, and to a large degree intentionally avoid it.